4.  The applicant had foreign currency accounts in Jugobanka A.D. Skopje that was afterwards re-registered as Foreign Trade Bank Skopje (Банка за надворешна трговија Скопје) (“the bank”), through which it had made the payments to its business partners. In 1991 the applicant made available several letters of credit (акредитиви) as warranty for payments to third parties. The bank allegedly did not comply with the applicant's order to execute them and to transfer the money. The amount of these letters of credit allegedly exceeded $ 200,000.
5. On 25 June 1992 the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings requesting the then Skopje District Commercial Court (Окружен Стопански Суд во Скопје) to order the bank to transfer the money due to its account.
6. On 30 June 1992 the then District Commercial Court granted the applicant's request. As the bank objected to the order, the subsequent proceedings continued as civil proceedings on the merits of the applicant's claim.
7. At the hearing held on 26 May 1993, the then Skopje District Commercial Court required an independent expert opinion. On 18 June 2003 the expert opinion was submitted to the court. On 16 July 1993 the applicant objected to the expert opinion.
8. The hearing listed for 20 September 1993 was adjourned at the applicant's request.
9. On 20 October 1993 the applicant requested the court to fix a hearing at its earliest convenience.
10. The hearing scheduled for 8 December 1993 was postponed as the bank's counter-claim of 21 June 1993 had not been forwarded to the court on time.
11. At the hearing of 31 January 1994 the applicant was requested to clarify its claim. On 22 February 1994 the applicant complied with the order.
12. The hearing of 7 March 1994 was adjourned and the bank was ordered to submit information concerning the applicant's claim as clarified. The court adjourned the hearing of 18 April 1994 due to the parties' absence.
13. At the hearing of 6 June 1994 the court ordered the State Forensic Institute (Републички Завод за судски вештачења) (“the Institute”) to draw up an expert report concerning two letters of credit. On 1 July 1994 the Institute asked the court to order the applicant to pay the expert's costs. The expertise scheduled for 1 November 1994 was adjourned as the bank had requested the court to disqualify the expert for bias. On 17 November 1994 the court dismissed the request. On 17 February 1995 the court received the expert opinion.
14. On 24 March 1995 the then Skopje District Commercial Court launched bankruptcy proceedings against the bank.
15. On 26 April 1995 the court stayed the civil proceedings.
16. As the receiver (стечаен управник) in the bankruptcy proceedings had disputed the applicant's claim, on 5 and 6 June 1995 the District Commercial Court, as a bankruptcy court, instructed the latter to institute separate civil proceedings to ascertain its claim.
17. On 23 February 1996 the applicant requested the court to resume the civil proceedings against the bank. It also asked the court to hold a hearing and to summon the experts who had already provided their opinions.
18. The court scheduled the next hearing for 16 March 1997. As this date fell on a Sunday, on 12 February 1997 the applicant requested the court to fix a working day.
19. On the hearing of 16 April 1997 the bank objected to the applicant's capacity to stand as a party and to the experts' opinions.
20. The hearing fixed for 18 June 1997 was adjourned due to the strike of the court's administrative staff. The hearing of 8 October was also adjourned.
21. The hearings of 10 December 1997 and 23 February 1998 were adjourned as none of the parties attended, albeit properly summoned. The court considered the applicant's claim as withdrawn.
22. On 2 March 1998 the applicant requested reinstatement of the proceedings (враќање во поранешна состојба). On 27 May 1998 the court granted the applicant's request and re-scheduled the hearing for 21 September 1998 ordering it to clarify its claim. On 2 June 1998 the applicant partly withdrew its claim concerning one of the letters of credit.
23. The hearings of 21 September and 22 December 1998 and 22 February 1999 were postponed because of the defendant's absence or at the latter's request.
24. On 2 April 1999 the bank challenged the previous expert opinion. On 26 April 1999 the applicant submitted its comments on this challenge.
25. On 21 April 1999 the court required additional expert opinion to be obtained concerning the bank's challenge of 2 April 1999. On 22 December 1999 the court appointed the State Forensic Institute for Financial Matters to draw up a report. On 7 February and 29 March 2000 the Institute asked the court to order the bank to pay the expert's costs. As the expert's costs remained unpaid, on 17 May 2000 the Institute sent the case-file back to the court.
26. On 8 November 2000 the applicant requested the court to transmit the file back to the Institute paying the expert's costs. On 14 November 2000 the court asked the Institute again to draw up its report. On 11 April 2001 the court received the expert opinion.
27. The hearing scheduled for 3 December 2001 was adjourned because of the defendant's absence, albeit properly summoned.
28. On 29 November 2001 the Skopje Court of First Instance completed the bankruptcy proceedings against the bank. It noted, inter alia, that the creditors' claims had been cleared from the bank's assets (стечајна маса) and that the remaining part had been transferred to the State.
29. On 4 February 2002 the Skopje Court of First Instance stayed the proceedings as the bank had ceased to exist.
30. On 13 March 2002 the applicant appealed against this decision. It complained inter alia, that the proceedings should continue against the State, as a legal successor of the bank which assumed possession of the remaining assets after the latter had been declared insolvent. By a submission of 12 June 2002, the applicant requested the court to invite the State to join the proceedings as a legal successor of the bank.
31. On 30 October 2002 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the lower court's decision. It found that the proceedings could not continue against the State, as the applicant had not officially requested continuation of the proceedings against the latter and the court could not ex officio continue them.
32. On 5 December 2002 the applicant requested the court to resume the proceedings against the State and to ask the latter to join the proceedings as a legal successor of the bank.
33. On 19 April 2004 the applicant asked the court to hold a hearing and to summon the Solicitor General (Јавен Правобранител) on behalf of the State.
34. On the hearing of 20 June 2005 the Solicitor General refused to participate in the proceedings. The applicant stated that it would lodge a separate claim against the State.
35. As far as the Court is aware, no final decision has yet been given.